i 7 2 FRANCIS HEMMING 



by Hiibner read as follows: — " Euchloe belia Esp. Pap. 92.11. Hiibn. Pap. 417.418 ". This 

 entry was perfectly comprehensible in Hiibner 's day and for long afterwards, the species being 

 the black-tipped white Pierid figured by Esper on the plate cited by Hiibner. The first author 

 to apply the name belia to this species was Stoll in 1782 (in Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 4 (34) : 225, 

 pi. 397, fig. A). Unluckily, the name belia so used was not a new name introduced by Stoll; it 

 was a name published by Linnaeus in 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 761). The Stoll/Esper/ 

 Hiibner interpretation of the specific name belia remained unchallenged until in 1869 (Ent. nion. 

 Mag. 5 : 271) Butler pointed out that the species to which in 1767 Linnaeus gave the name belia 

 was totally distinct from that to which it had been applied by Stoll. The name Papilio belia 

 of Linnaeus was based on a pale-cream-coloured white-tipped insect taken in North Africa 

 which was in fact the female of the brilliant yellow orange-tipped species to the male of which 

 Linnaeus has given the name Papilio eupheno (: 762). Butler's discovery left the South of 

 France insect, which Esper had figured, without a name. This deficiency was made good in 

 1 87 1 when Kirby gave the name esperi to that taxon. 



Serious confusion would have arisen if, following Butler's (1869) discovery, the genus 

 Euchloe Hiibner had been interpreted as though, when citing the specific name belia he had 

 correctly applied that name to the yellow orange-tipped North African species (i.e. eupheno 

 Linnaeus) and not to the white black-tipped species figured by Esper, for in 1833 the yellow- 

 orange-tipped species had been separated from Euchloe by Boisduval, Rambur and Graslin. 

 Thus, if — in defiance of the clear intention of Hiibner — it had been assumed that the specific 

 name belia had been correctly interpreted by Hiibner, the effect would have been that the 

 name Anthocharis would have become a junior subjective synonym of Euchloe, the white 

 black-tipped group of species being thus left without a generic name. This would have been 

 highly confusing, because it would have involved the transfer of the name Euchloe from the 

 white species to the yellow species. 



In the circumstances it was decided that this was pre-eminently a case where the Commission 

 should be asked to give a ruling that the species to be accepted as the type-species of Euchloe 

 should be the species intended by Hiibner (the author of this generic name) and not the species 

 to which the name which he used (belia) properly applies. An application in this sense was 

 submitted to the Commision by myself in 1935. This application was approved by the Com- 

 mission, whose decision was promulgated in Opinion 177 in June 1946 (Opin. int. Comm. 

 zool. Noni. 2 : 533-544). Later, in Opinion 270 (1954, l° c - c ^- 6 : 2 5~4°) the Commission 

 placed the generic name Euchloe Hiibner on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as 

 Name No. 687. In the same Opinion the Commission placed the group name esperi Kirby. 

 1 87 1, as published in the combination Euchloe ausonia Hiibner, var. esperi, the species-group 

 name adopted by the Commission when designating the taxon so named as the type-species, 

 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 90. 



EUCHRYSOPS Butler, 1900, Entomologist 33 : 1. Type-species by original designation : 

 Hesperia cnejus Fabricius, 1798, Supp. Ent. syst. : 430. 



EUCORA Schaus, 1902, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 24 (1262) : 400. Type-species by original desig- 

 nation : Eucora sanarita Schaus, 1902, ibid. 24 (1262) : 400. 



The name Eucora Schaus is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Eucora Hiibner, [1823] 

 (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (18) : 278). See Eucoma Strand, 1932. 



EUCORMA Seitz, [1924], Grossschmett. Erde 5 : 1030, 1088. Type-species through Section (i) 

 (replacement names) of Article 67 : Eucora sanarita Schaus, 1902. 



This name was published in an obscure and unsatisfactory manner, but it is considered that 

 it must be regarded as having been introduced by Seitz deliberately as a replacement for 

 Eucora Schaus which (as shown above) is invalid under the Law of Homonymy. The name 

 Eucorma appeared twice in the above volume: first, on page 1030 in the " Additions " section 

 this name was applied without comment to Eucora sanarita Schaus. So published, the spelling 

 Eucorma might have been an inadvertent Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of Eucora Schaus. 

 In the alphabetical index at the end of the volume (: 1088) there appears in addition to the 



